Tag: Health Care

On 4/20/2011, the FTC challenged Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.’s (Phoebe’s) proposed acquisition of rival Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc. (Palmyra) from HCA, in Albany, Georgia. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that the deal will reduce competition significantly and allow the combined Phoebe/Palmyra to raise prices for general acute-care hospital services charged to commercial health plans, substantially harming patients and local employers and employees. The FTC also alleges that Phoebe has structured the deal in a way that uses the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County (the Authority) in an attempt to shield the anticompetitive acquisition from federal antitrust scrutiny under the “state action” doctrine. The FTC’s staff, together with the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, filed a separate complaint in federal district court in Albany, Georgia, seeking an order to halt any transaction involving Phoebe, the Authority, or Palmyra, under which Phoebe would acquire control of Palmyra’s operations, until the conclusion of the FTC’s administrative proceeding and any subsequent appeals. On 2/19/2013, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded further proceedings.  On June 27, 2011, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the transaction was protected by the state action doctrine.  On December 14, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.  In February 2013, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the state of Georgia had not clearly articulated a policy that would permit the Hospital Authority to approve anticompetitive mergers.

On 3/14/2013, the Commission issued an order granting complaint counsels motion to lift the stay on administrative proceedings. On 4/9/2013, an amended complaint and renewed motions for a PI and TRO were filed in federal district court in Georgia, pending an 8/5/2013 administrative trial. On 5/15/2013, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the FTC’s motion for a temporary restraining order. On 6/25/2013, the Commission granted the motion to withdraw the matter from Part III, and accepted for public comment a proposed settlement of its charges. Due to the unique circumstances of the Certificate of Need (CON) laws in Georgia, the Commission originally believed it was unable to require that the hospitals become independent competitors. On 9/5/2014, based on public comments received, as well as other information, the Commission determined that Georgia’s CON laws may not preclude structural relief, and voted to withdraw its acceptance of the proposed consent agreement and return the matter to administrative litigation. On 3/31/15, the FTC entered into a settlement agreement requiring Phoebe Putney and the Hospital Authority must notify the FTC in advance of acquiring any part of a hospital or a controlling interest in other healthcare providers in the Albany, Georgia area for the next 10 years, and prohibiting them from objecting to regulatory applications made by potential new hospital providers in the same area for up to five years. The settlement is similar to the one proposed in 2013 and does not require structural relief.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 7/17/2010 alleging that the state dental board in North Carolina is harming competition by blocking non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services in the state. The FTC charged that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners impermissibly ordered non-dentists to stop providing teeth-whitening services, which has made it harder to obtain these services and more expensive for North Carolina consumers. According to the FTC’s administrative complaint, teeth-whitening services are much less expensive when performed by non-dentist than when performed by dentists. In an Initial Decision issued July 14, 2011, the ALJ found that non-dentists compete with dentists to provide teeth whitening services in North Carolina and that the Dental Board's concerted action to exclude non-dentist-provided teeth whitening services from the market had a tendency to harm competition. The ALJ further found that the Dental Board's action had no valid pro competitive justification and constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade and an unfair method of competition. On February 8, 2011, the Commission denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Board's actions were not entitled to state action immunity. The Commission ruled that because the Board is controlled by practicing dentists, its condcut must be actively supervised by the state. OnDecember 7, 2011, the Commission issued an Opinion concluding that the Dental Board violated of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and agreed with the ALJ that the Dental Board's conduct "constituted concerte action, . . . had a tendency to harm competition and did in fact harm competition," and had no legitimate pro-competitive justification. The Commission concluded that the Dental Board's conduct could be deemed illegal under the "inherently suspect" mode of analysis because the challenged conduct had a clear tendency to suppress competition and lacked any countervailing procompetitive virtue. On May 3, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the Board's petition to review the Commission's decision and on 2/25/15, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The FTC required hospital management company Universal Health Services, Inc. to sell an acute inpatient psychiatric facility in the El Paso, Texas/Santa Teresa, New Mexico area to settle charges that UHS’s proposed acquisition of Ascend Health Corporation would be anticompetitive. As proposed, the deal allegedly would lead to a virtual monopoly in the provision of acute inpatient psychiatric services to commercially insured patients in the El Paso/Santa Teresa area.  The FTC's final order requires UHS to sell its Peak Behavioral Health Services facility within six months to an FTC-approved buyer. In addition, to ensure that the Peak assets are able to attract a buyer that can effectively compete with UHS after the sale, the proposed order allows the Commission to require a second UHS hospital, Mesilla Valley Hospital in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to be sold together with Peak if Peak alone is not divested to an approved buyer within six months.